Is high mileage HEALTHY though?

"Die Young"- Dio

Takinadump wrote:

"Die Young"- Dio

Black Sabbath, Heaven & Hell

Go for it....

Our ancestors were long distance runners. We are natural long distance runners. If we wisely gradually build up to long mileage i believe its our second nature to be running high mileage. The only difference with us in the 21st century is we have to be aware of our initial abilities since we have ran very less in our life time.

When Dr. Kenneth Cooper explained health risk versus mileage in a presentation I saw many years ago, it looked like a ski jump.

With only modest mileage (12miles/week), health risk dropped tremendously versus the couch potato non-exerciser. Then, it leveled off for a while before beginning to climb again somewhere around 30mpw, but it never got as high as the nonexerciser.

Cooper's premise, IIRC, was (is still) that running produces cortisol. At modest levels, cortisol is a good thing and the body gets rid of it. At extreme running levels, cortisol floods the body and keeps cortisol levels permanently high. Continuously high cortisol levels suppress the immune system. A suppressed immune system has been linked to numerous deadly or debilitating diseases.

Anecdotally, my older running friends who are recreational marathoners are mostly healthy. My older competition marathoner friends seem to have a higher level of diseases that have been linked to a suppressed immune system.

I started taking supplements after hearing Cooper's talk in 1994. I have also avoided marathon training for the past 20 years. I do mid-distance training and extremely hard HIIT workouts 4-5 times/week using different muscle groups. I am convinced that this approach has been a primary factor in my moving from a guy who might place in my age group in local 5Ks 20 years ago to a world-class 400/800m runner.

tl;dr Marathon training will make you a lot healthier than your sedentary peers, but it's not as healthy as a more modest running program combined with weightlifting and HIIT.

Sorry if I misread, but you are/were a world-class 400 and 800 meter runner?

Fisky, I think you're right on target with that approach, although a half-marathon in the fall always appeals to me. I used to believe there was an increased chance of injury doing HIIT, but after injuries during easy running periods, the odds from injury seem the same for all forms of training. Would you mind posting a sample week of your HIIT schedule? Thanks.

I see a lot of BS examples of runners who had health trouble, but not much mention of older runners who did well. Ron Clarke is the best example. Ed Whitlock is a decent example. We can play this name game all day long and go in circles, because there are many other factors in play besides running. Running increases your oxygen efficiency, but that effect in the red blood cells diminishes since red blood cells only last for 90 days. The changes to the heart, arteries, and capillaries can last quite a bit longer. Certainly any physical adaptation or injury to bone/ligament/tendon can also last a long time. High mileage while kept aerobic can be very healthy. Arguably it's the 10% of intensity you might do each week that is unhealthy; not the high mileage itself. Also, running instantly isn't healthy if you get an acute injury and it won't be over time if you suffer repetitive stress injuries.

Really it's about living a healthy lifestyle over many years. Diet can easily ruin you, as you can still clog your arteries if you aren't eating well. And you can have crap ability to use oxygen if you never left a finger.

Salazar is a bad example. He tried various drugs and admits his training style messed up his endocrine system. High mileage was bad for him, but it sounds like he learned quite a bit about how to teach others to run high mileage while staying healthy. I recall reading somewhere that his triglycerides were super high, too, when he was older. Running isn't the key factor in something like having triglycerides, though it does impact how your body might use them.

I think it was Peter Snell who said that his doctors frequently commented on his large heart and arteries, but that he was of the impression that had they not been enlarged a bit some of the plaque clogging would have caused him more heart trouble much earlier in life. So as far as he was concerned running helped him into old age.

Jim Fixx is the commonly cited example of how running did little for his longevity, but he had genetics against him. While alive he seemed to credit running for the reason he could feel good about the health he did have.

Micah True "Caballo Blanco" is the kind of older ultrarunner guy who died seemingly randomly and you might say running was bad for him. Well, being dehydrated out in the heat is hard on anyone's heart and is probably why he died, so you could blame that on running, but if he had stuck to cooler temperatures, less mileage, or better fueling it probably would not have happened. I don't think you can say running is inherently unhealthy just because he mixed it badly one day. That would be like saying driving a car is bad for you just because 1 day in 20,000 days you get into a car accident. You can't really blame running itself.

Are you less likely to get injured by doing a casual 30 miles per week? Sure. Will you have incredible oxygen efficiency and speed at 30 miles a week? Unlikely. Running can make you fit and for a runner who has ever felt fit, then dropping down to 30 miles a week may as well be unhealthy by contrast to how you've felt before.

It isn’t the heart that suffers with the 100 mile weeks, it’s your joints, ligaments and in some cases your adrenals.